判決理由書／裁決書撮要(由AI生成)
以下撮要以AI生成及／或翻譯，內容以原來的判決理由書／裁決書為準。
The judgment states that during the late hours of 13 August to the early morning of 14 August 2019, the defendants gathered unlawfully at the G concourse of the departure hall at Hong Kong International Airport and detained a mainland resident. During this time they bound him with adhesive tape and cable ties, repeatedly assaulted him, doused him with water, shone beams of light on him, and forced him to remove his trousers as a form of humiliation. The incident then escalated into a riot, which was recorded by CCTV and multiple media clips. Since the victim was unable to identify them on the spot, the prosecution relied on screenshots from the footage, comparisons of the defendants’ appearance, clothing and movements at different times, and the second defendant’s voluntary confession, among other contextual evidence, to identify each of the four defendants.
Based on the statutory sentencing framework for riot, false imprisonment and offences of causing grievous bodily harm under section 18 of the Public Order Ordinance and common law
The court took into account the extent of each defendant’s role and the duration of their participation in the assembly and riot, the degree of physical and psychological harm caused to the victim, and balanced the need for punishment and deterrence with the maintenance of public order
The judge concluded that the identification evidence for the first to third defendants and the second defendant’s voluntary confession all met the statutory ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ standard, while the fourth defendant’s identity could not be confirmed from the footage and the evidence was insufficient, resulting in a not guilty verdict
The court ultimately convicted the first, second and third defendants of false imprisonment, riot and assault occasioning bodily harm and entered guilty verdicts; the charges of unlawful assembly and false imprisonment against the fourth defendant were not proven and he was acquitted. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判決理由書／裁決書
判刑理由書撮要(由AI生成)
以下撮要以AI生成及／或翻譯，內容以原來的判刑理由書為準。
The judgment states that on the evening of 13 August 2019 at the Departure Hall of Hong Kong International Airport, the defendants staged an unlawful assembly in two phases and illegally detained a victim for about 50 minutes. The incident then developed into a riot, during which participants used improvised weapons such as umbrellas, flagpoles and anti-slip pads to assault the victim and obstruct attempts to intervene and render assistance. At trial the second defendant was convicted of unlawful confinement; the first to third defendants were convicted of riot and assault occasioning actual bodily harm; separate sentencing was imposed for common assault, obstruction of public officers and possession of an offensive weapon in a public place.
The court referred to a maximum penalty of seven years for unlawful confinement, ten years for riot (the District Court may impose up to seven years), three years for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, twelve months for common assault and six months for obstruction of public officers, and three years for possession of an offensive weapon. It also took into account the twelve sentencing factors for riot in the Leung Tin-kei case and relevant case law, establishing baseline sentences according to the nature of the offence, number of participants, use of weapons, duration, impact of the location and the defendants’ backgrounds.
The judge held that the violent conduct occurred in the core area of an international airport, severely disrupting public order and causing actual harm to the victim, with intense and sustained methods requiring significant deterrence. The second defendant, having an intellectual disability and being a repeat offender, received a moderate reduction. The third defendant, with no prior convictions, was given a reduction after applying the baseline sentence. All three defendants benefitted from mitigation for pleading guilty, with some sentences to run concurrently or be served in instalments.
The court emphasised that upholding the rule of law and public order required severe punishment for violent acts. While it took into account the political context and the defendants’ youth and physical and mental conditions, on balance it considered that a deterrent effect must be demonstrated, allowing limited discretion for special circumstances.
The first defendant was sentenced to five years and three months’ imprisonment to run concurrently for four offences; the second defendant was sentenced to four years and three months’ imprisonment to run concurrently for three offences, with three years to be served in instalments alongside an existing sentence; the third defendant was sentenced to a total of five years and six months’ imprisonment, with sentences for riot and assault to run concurrently and the sentence for possession of an offensive weapon to be served in instalments. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書